Sparing piriformis and internus repairing externus vs. other conventional approaches for hip hemiarthroplasty: A report of early outcomes from a single UK trauma unit

Abstract

Purpose

Over 30,000 hip hemiarthroplasties for neck of femur fractures are performed annually in the United Kingdom (UK). The national recommendation is via the lateral approach, to reduce the risk of dislocation, with the potential expense of reduced function and mobility post-operatively. Muscle-sparing approaches, such as SPAIRE (sparing piriformis and internus repairing externus), have been invented to address the issue of dislocation.

Methods

We performed a retrospective data collection at a single center with a high annual volume of hip hemiarthroplasties over 12 months. All patients who had hip hemiarthroplasty as their primary treatment were included. Patients who passed away and were non-ambulant before their surgery were excluded from the study. Our primary outcome was the dislocation rate and secondary outcomes were the time to mobilization after surgery and the duration of surgery. Statistical analysis was performed using XLSTAT software.

Results

We identified 194 cases, and these were divided into 3 groups based on the surgical approach: SPAIRE (n = 43), lateral (n = 97), and posterior (n = 54). Groups had similar demographics and a minimum 3-month follow-up after surgery. There were no dislocations in the SPAIRE group, whereas the dislocation rate for the other 2 groups was 2.5% in the lateral and 9.1% in the posterior groups at 6 months post-surgery. There was an earlier return to mobility in the SPAIRE (1.4 day) compared to the 2 other groups ( 2 days and 2.6 days). Average surgical times were very similar among all 3 groups (74 min vs. 79 min vs. 71 min).

Conclusion

The SPAIRE approach seems to be safe and provides a low risk of dislocation and good post-operative function for patients undergoing hip hemiarthroplasties.